Proposed PATCO Expansion

but if they make the river 5 feet deeper wouldn't the ship then be 5 feet lower?

I did a little research on the tunnel idea and saw that they did begin to build one early in the century. However I couldn't find out why. They described the tunnel as being built for electric trains

gardendance wrote:but if they make the river 5 feet deeper wouldn't the ship then be 5 feet lower?

No, think about it. If you add more space for the water to come in, the water level will remain the same but the depth of the water will change.

I think gardenence was being sarcastic, with his smiley face. Obviously, the vessels aren't dragging on the river floor; they're floating.

Sarcastic is a bit extreme, I was just supplying a little bit of childish humor, which I do once in a while to help forget that I'm too many decades removed from childhood now.

And actually if you lower the bottom of any body of water and maintain the same volume of water then you will lower the surface. Vessels will sit lower relative to the bridges, but a 5 foot deep 300 or whatever wide channel in a mile wide river will lower the river's surface by quite a bit less than 5 feet, I'm guessing more on the lines of fractions of an inch.

The absence of those 5 feet of river bottom would be much more signifigant relative to the top of any tunnel, cable or pipeline under the river, but as has been mentioned already it's unlikely that the dredging's going to go north of the Walt Whitman bridge, which is south of expected tunnel locations.

Childish humor, sarcasm, it's all good. God knows I use it here all the time.

One interesting thing is that if you lay the tunnel on the surface of the river bottom, like the Ted Williams Tunnel in Boston, and (I'm not 100% sure) the Blue Line tunnel there, too, future dredging becomes impossible, which some people would want...

ambiguous reference. Which would some people want, future dredging, or future dredging to be impossible?

So then you just use the absurd alternate, pile up high levees on all shores and fill in the body of water's bottom, or narrow the stream, to make the channel deeper.

It depends who you are. Environmentalists are against dredging because it would disturb the river bottom, and shake up all kinds of toxic sediment, that would be better off left in place. Gov. Jon Corzine sees the Camden Riverfront as a real estate gold mine, and would love to wave a magic want and replace the current industry with high-rise condos and office towers, just like what's been going on in Jersey City and Hoboken. And the shippers and port authority (and especially the state of PA) ARE in favor, since accommodations are needed for larger vessels, in order for the local ports to remain competitive with New York, Wilmington DE, Baltimore, Norfolk, etc.

The Delaware River is a major industrial waterway. It is NOT a quaint Long Island harbor. There's been industry along its shores since the beginning. That being said, there's a place for everything, and everybody can win here.

First of all, light rail should be built along the PA side of the river, as well as extend the Riverline south as the Patco extension to Glassboro. Electrification on the NJ side wouldn't be needed, and light rail might be a little easier to swallow for the NIMBY's there. And it would go through the industrial areas, where, get this, people work! And light rail wouldn't cross the Walt Whitman, as even more heavy rail trains would cause all kinds of aforementioned problems. Then, if industry closes down, then the brownfields can be developed. But you just can't go in an kick out waterfront industry, because they're there for a reason, and it's not the view.

I shoudl have known I wasn't the first to propose this, but I would emphasize that at tunnel woudl be far more useful as an extension of the commuter tunnel rather than another PATCO tunnel

Also, Suburban Station was designed so that its two northern-most tracks could be extended eastward towards a proposed tunnel under the Delaware River to connect to Pennsylvania Railroad lines out of Camden, New Jersey

http://www.stationreporter.net/suburban.htm

Suburban Station wrote:I shoudl have known I wasn't the first to propose this, but I would emphasize that at tunnel woudl be far more useful as an extension of the commuter tunnel rather than another PATCO tunnel

Also, Suburban Station was designed so that its two northern-most tracks could be extended eastward towards a proposed tunnel under the Delaware River to connect to Pennsylvania Railroad lines out of Camden, New Jersey

http://www.stationreporter.net/suburban.htm

Personally I do like the idea of the tunnel going into Camden because I think it would help (possibly in vain) to revive Camden. If they do build a tunnel they should keep it capable of handling as many types of train traffic as possible though. How/if this is feasible I do not know. I just think it is a good idea. They also need to keep in mind the possibility of deepening the Delaware. It's vital that the port stays competitive. edit* I forgot to mention that they should use the original idea of going through Suburban Station. It would allow for better inner city connections for NJ Commuters, but may require other improvements as well.

I just got finish reading all 9 pages, clicking just about every link and studied the PATCO plans.


Sorry if I jump around a bit, I am trying to rattle this off while its fresh in my head, I will try to piece it all together properly after I write down all my points.

First question what gauge is the BSL?

The reason I am asking is because with some of the proposed plans of the BSL, and I think even with the final plans even though I do not think some of it did not get built. Wasn't there suppose to be an interchange at Arch St, as well as Walnut?

Now if the PATCO Line is the same gauge as the BSL, how feasible would it be to once it cross the bridge to turn off at Arch connect to the BSL connecting with City Hall and then connecting back to Walnut/Locust. This way you could have some trains hitting City Hall with a one seat ride and others can go down its current route.

Patco Delaware Ave Ext.

As for what vehicles to use I would suggest LRVs similar to the Riverline not necessarily diesel, but something along those lines, using the same standards that allows the Riverline to operate with along the same trackage as freight. This will eliminate the need to seperate the tracks and add passing siding and stub tracks where need. These cars could be possible dual gauge to allow interaction with the Rt 15 with no complications due to the difference in tracks.

As for storage of the extra cars for the Delaware Ave Ext. I am sure something can be worked out to use the PASHA auto terminal, it is now only used for the very rare transloading of military equipment at Packer Marine Terminal. This also give PATCO easy access to the Navy Yard as well as the stadiums which the platforms is still somewhat in tact since they use it for the Army Navy Game every year when they bring soldiers up to watch the game. Also they could build the maintenance facilty there as well as this lot of land is enormous.

The Broad Street line (Orange Line) and PATCO are both standard gauge with overriding third rail. In the past ,BSS trains crossed the bridge to Camden every day. This ended with the creation of PATCO. I think the voltage is close (600-700 DC). Interchange between the two systems has been proposed many times with mixed reveiws by those in power.The idea of 'one seat rides' always meets with public approval but seems to fall on deaf ears with management, unless its to their advantage.

ex Budd man wrote:The Broad Street line (Orange Line) and PATCO are both standard gauge with overriding third rail. In the past ,BSS trains crossed the bridge to Camden every day. This ended with the creation of PATCO. I think the voltage is close (600-700 DC). Interchange between the two systems has been proposed many times with mixed reveiws by those in power.The idea of 'one seat rides' always meets with public approval but seems to fall on deaf ears with management, unless its to their advantage.

I think the same benefit could be accomplished by extending the PATCO tunnel north as having it stop at city hall. going north provides a one seat ride to west market, transfer to the SS routes and suburban station. One thing I wouldn't mind seeing is the Broad Ridge spur reconnected to the "PATCO tunnel" such that people transferring between the two would have a cross platform transfer.

ex Budd man wrote:

The Broad Street line (Orange Line) and PATCO are both standard gauge with overriding third rail. In the past ,BSS trains crossed the bridge to Camden every day. This ended with the creation of PATCO. I think the voltage is close (600-700 DC). Interchange between the two systems has been proposed many times with mixed reveiws by those in power.

This subject area has been covered in quite a few threads previously.

The DC voltages are different, and the dispatching / train control systems are incompatible. The current situation should not be viewed as a single system that was somehow inappropriately split, but rather as two seperate systems that just happen to be in close physical proximity to each other at one, and only one, location.

Could the physical and operational standards of Broad Street Subway and PATCO become compatible again? Sure, for lots of money providing very little benefit. Walnut-Locust is a realistic substitute for 12th-13th and 15th-16th Street stations. Transfer at City Hall Station, ride the MFSE east and you can be at 8th & Market. So, does it make sense to drop how many hundreds of millions to provide service between North Philadelphia and 9th-10th Station???

An extention of the Locust Street Tunnel might be a reason to justify consideration of through service. The PRT-era plan of extending to Southwest Philadelphia isn't gonna happen. And while there are several routes that might make sense for a PATCO extention west of 15th-16th Station, the fact is that none of them are under consideration as a part of the current DRPA study, thus providing no reasonable expectation for any such extention for the forseeable future.

Suburban Station wrote:One thing I wouldn't mind seeing is the Broad Ridge spur reconnected to the "PATCO tunnel" such that people transferring between the two would have a cross platform transfer.

I'm assuming you're thinking of south on Ridge to go to New Jersey. That would entail either some fancy dispatching, or a 3 or 4 track station with tacks on each side of the transferring platform going in opposite directions.
There are some subway stations like that in New York and Montreal, but the ones I'm thinking of 2 tack tunnels stacked one on top of the other, difficult to do with the Market St subway in the way.
If, as Bill R. mentions, you're looking at North Philly to 9th-10th and Locust, it'd be simpler just to send the Ridge trains all the way to the end of the Locust St subway, since you'd have to get them out of the way at 8th St somehow even if you had your proposed cross platform transfer.
But like Bill R, I don't see the cost worth the passengers.